Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#www.rothbartsfoot.info -- quackery or useful

Hi folks, I’ve been a member for about a year and am curious how to become a reviewer for ProjectMed articles? As previously introduced when I was invited to join this WikiProject, I have 15+ years of work experience in medicine, including in basic science (wet and dry bench labs) and largely in clinical trials/research administration and operations. I’m a microbiologist by degree and training. Thanks!

Gobucks821 (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Gobucks821 This depends what you mean by "reviewer" there is WP:AFC where you can look over drafts, and WP:NPP where you can review new articles, but there is also :Category:Unassessed medicine articles where you can assess pages. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::I forgot the exact tag, but for instance a few articles have a header to the effect that “This is the latest accepted, reviewed version.” That’s what I’m referring to. How do we decide who dose that? Need to have a talk page comment at the article first? For how long? Thnx!

::Gobucks821 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gobucks821, does Body mass index have the header that you're thinking of? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@WhatamIdoing Yes! This is exactly correct! Plz advise??

::::Gobucks821 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Gobucks821, that page is one of the few under Wikipedia:Pending changes. That system is usually set to allow IPs and new editors to make an edit, but their new edit isn't shown to ordinary readers until a more experienced editor (a "pending changes reviewer") either makes an edit, or clicks a button to approve the newbie's edit. It's mostly used to reduce the risk of vandalism being seen by readers.

:::::There is more information at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, including the criteria for becoming a PC reviewer.

:::::If you want to know how many articles are under PC protection, see Special:ValidationStatistics (answer: less than 4,000; there are almost 7 million articles). If you want to know which pages are under PC protection, see Special:StablePages or :Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages. If you want to know which edits need reviewing, see Special:PendingChanges (currently: one article). If you want to know which WPMED articles are protected this way, then I'm not sure how to generate that list directly, but [https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?sparql=&ns%5B1%5D=1&interface_language=en&project=wikipedia&language=en&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&larger=&links_to_all=&maxlinks=&output_compatability=catscan&after=&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&min_sitelink_count=&wikidata_label_language=&rxp_filter=&wikidata_item=no&show_redirects=both&search_query=&categories=Wikipedia+pending+changes+protected+pages%7C0%0D%0AMedicine&manual_list_wiki=&output_limit=&cb_labels_yes_l=1&wikidata_prop_item_use=&templates_no=&page_image=any&cb_labels_no_l=1&search_wiki=&search_max_results=500&depth=5&outlinks_yes=&links_to_no=&manual_list=&templates_any=&wpiu=any&min_redlink_count=1&negcats=&search_filter=&since_rev0=&sortby=ns_title&ores_prob_from=&ns%5B0%5D=1&referrer_url=&cb_labels_any_l=1&doit= this Petscan query] might give you some ideas (with lots of false positives). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@WhatamIdoing Thanks much! So could you please further clarify how I can be a PC reviewer/approve acceptable newb changes? Thnx!

::::::Gobucks821 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You need to meet the WP:PCCRITERIA. If you believe that you meet the criteria, then you can request the user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. If you read that page (and maybe look at some of the recent responses via the page history), then you should get a good idea of what they're looking for (e.g., someone who is actively checking Special:RecentChanges and reverting bad edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks! Pardon the delay. I’ll look into this!

::::::::Gobucks821 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The Problematic social media use article is exceptionally poor, and has been for some time, largely because it has been the subject of repeated student editing projects that have resulted in people adding material just for the sake of writing. The writing style reflects this, with a lot of school-essay style padding.

The article desperately needs tightening up, refactoring and copyediting; I think it could easily be reduced to half the length without losing anything of value.

Would anyone here be willing to take a look at it? — The Anome (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I tried to help with the lead. Most of the article needs a re-write to remove the primary sources. I did not have time to do this part, but tried to set up a better framework for the lead. If people better at writing leads than me (many of you) can help polish that would be amazing.JenOttawa (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I remember this article being pinged to WT:MED back in 2019 (archive link), my edits to it (mostly removing primary refs) caused the original editor to post to my talk page a bit and eventually I stopped editing that page... also I notice back in 2019 he removed the already stated connection on the article's talk page. The other mentioned article in my first archive link is now named Digital media use and mental health and probably could also use some eyes..? --Treetear (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I sometimes find that adding inline tags such as {{tl|medical citation needed}} or {{tl|primary source inline}} is helpful if there's a cleanup effort underway, or if there is an editor dedicated to improving the article.

::::For labeling sources that aren't problematic, you can add |type=Review to the citation templates. Articles such as Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report, which are at the intersection of medical evidence and current events, would benefit from someone adding |type=News and |type=Press release (and similar labels: social media posts, letters to the editor, etc.) to the sources. That helps editors see whether the source in question is a suitable one for the particular statement being made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for flagging. I followed it but not sure how much time I will have this week. I spent some time trying to clean up Problematic social media use over the last few weeks. I now see a new class has been assigned to the article so hopefully the cleaned article will help set a nice base... JenOttawa (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can someone please review my request for help with content that was previously shared in the article on the talk page?JenOttawa (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the text for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulmonary_hypertension&diff=prev&oldid=1286108031 this edit] may have been generated by/using ChatGPT. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I went ahead and checked out the citations. All of them are reliable sources and directly support the content of the edit. LLM use was also disclosed, within the citations. Under these conditions, there is no inherent problem with LLM use, including ChatGPT. I see another editor reverted the edit based on your post here - I've gone ahead and reverted that revert, as the content seems acceptable and does contribute to the page.

:Basically, as long as people are doing their due diligence and cross-checking information, this can be a nice tool for writing long sections quickly. I've been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aortic_stenosis&diff=prev&oldid=1286796219 experimenting] with finding source articles first, and feeding them to the model with specific instructions on picking and summarizing information. It has been fruitful and I plan to continue this practice, although I have noticed a couple discrepancies that definitely mandate continued full cross-checking. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for doing that work, @Just-a-can-of-beans, and also for this interesting explanation about how your experiments are proceeding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for sharing these updates.JenOttawa (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 20#Virostatic about the redirects Virostatic (current target Virus) and Virostatics (current target Antiviral drug) would benefit from the input of editors with relevant subject matter knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Does anyone know how to initiate a name change request as per a talk page? The article Reduction (orthopedic surgery) has been suggested to be changed to away from ortho because not all reductions are done in orthopedic surgery. Ideas for next steps would be great! JenOttawa (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Moved! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::On the procedural question:

::# Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and turn on Twinkle (first section, about the tenth item).

::# Reload the article's page. See new 'TW' menu in the corner.

::# Choose 'XFD' from the TW menu. Choose 'Requested moves' from the drop-down menu. Fill in the form and click the button.

::WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks so much to both of you. WAID- Will bookmark this for next time. Have a great rest of your days.JenOttawa (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hallo, Our coverage of NORSE or New-onset refractory status epilepticus seems confused and I've raised a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Epilepsy#NORSE, but there might be someone out here who could usefully join that discussion. Thanks. PamD 14:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:might help....{{cite journal |last1=Ritter |first1=Laura Mantoan |last2=Nashef |first2=Lina |title=New-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) |journal=Practical Neurology |date=1 April 2021 |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=119–127 |doi=10.1136/practneurol-2020-002534 |url=https://pn.bmj.com/content/21/2/119 |access-date=25 April 2025 |language=en |issn=1474-7758}}--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Ozzie10aaaa Thanks. Let's keep the discussion in one place - I'll copy this to the original discussion. PamD 20:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I see that the article Telegony (inheritance) made claims about human biology that included material not supported by WP:MEDRS. I've trimmed out some already; would any editors here be willing to take a look at the article to see if any more needs removing or amending? — The Anome (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I tried making some minor edits.JenOttawa (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I would be grateful if members of WikiProject Medicine could provide feedback on the following Spanish-language draft related to pediatric cancer surveillance in Latin America:

Draft title: Draft:Vigicancer. Sistema de vigilancia epidemiológica al cáncer infantil

The article presents VIGICÁNCER, a national surveillance system for childhood cancer outcomes in Colombia. It includes references from peer-reviewed journals (J Global Oncol, Cancer Medicine, Front Oncol) and has received international recognition (SIOP Global Health Award).

Any comments on structure, formatting, or notability are welcome.

Thank you in advance, --~~~~ Lebravo (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Lebravo, did you intend to write in Spanish at the English Wikipedia? Spanish-language articles should be at the Spanish-language Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

We have an article on Dyskinetic cerebral palsy and an article on Athetoid cerebral palsy. But aren't they the same?

Should both be tagged with {{tl|Merge}}? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:It does seem like these are used synonymously in the medical literature. For some reason two articles were spawned during a redirect/article splitting event way back in 2010, and they were never reunited. I'm not sure which term should take precedence. It looks like "dyskinetic" is already used throughout the main cerebral palsy page -- should we stick with that? And in that case, based on the merge template instructions, I'll start a discussion on the dyskinetic cerebral palsy page? Aeffenberger (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{al|Roseto effect}}

Apparently a term form an "effect" (whereby increased social cohesion increases population health in certain respects) which enjoyed a brief period of usage but which failed to gain traction having, so far as I can see, no WP:MEDRS.[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22roseto+effect%22&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=other.medline] An editor{{snd}}{{u|Ke4roh}}{{snd}}is keen to keep the article and has expanded and reverted content with general references so that now, as Wikipedia now says:

{{tq2|Although these studies do not directly examine Roseto, they support the plausibility of social cohesion as a protective factor for cardiovascular and general health}}

Would appreciate further views on whether there is sourcing for this, whether WP:NOR applies, whether it is viable as a topic, or whether this can be mentioned elsewhere if at all. (If sourcing can be found, for example, it might be mentioned briefly at Social determinants of health?) Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi all — I’ve opened a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roseto_effect#h-RFC:_Is_the_current_framing_and_sourcing_for_the_Roseto_Effect_article_appropria-20250509022300 Request for Comment] at Talk:Roseto effect about whether the article’s current framing and sourcing comply with WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY. The article presents a historically influential case study in social cohesion and cardiovascular health, with modern sourcing to frame its relevance and limitations.

Input from editors familiar with medical or sociological sourcing would be very welcome. Thanks! -- ke4roh (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• same topic as directly above?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello to all

I am an expert in mechanical ventilation (check-out Josef X Brunner on pubed) and tried to improve the Wikipedia page on Modes of mechanical ventilation. Unfortunately, an anonymous user eliminated my entries entirely three times accusing me of vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modes_of_mechanical_ventilation&action=history

I tried to get in touch with the person but to no avail.

Could someone please check the View History page and tell me how to proceed. I am seriously interested to put things into perspective, to elminate false information and add facts based on most recent literature and reports.

One example of a false contention is: Aptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is the only commercially available mode that uses optimal targeting. This information is incorrect and may mislead the public - and AI. There are many such optimal-targeting modes available on different devices from different manufacturers.

Thank you.

Josef Josef X Brunner (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome to Wikipedia, and to this group. I hope you'll like the place and stick around. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia, which was originally written for medical experts.

:One of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modes_of_mechanical_ventilation&diff=prev&oldid=1233283856 your edit summaries] indicates that there were lawsuits involved in some of this in recent years. The IP is currently editing from the same general part of California as one of the litigants, so there's even a small chance that, like you, the IP also knows someone who was involved.

:I see you're already on the talk page, but I think our next step is to start a new discussion there that is specifically about the history. (Update: Please join me at Talk:Modes of mechanical ventilation#Lawsuits.)

:Also, I think it might help if we added some maintenance tags to the whole article. That can make it easier for people to see and agree on what needs doing. For example, many of the sources are too old for WP:MEDDATE, and it's my (non-expert) impression that there were substantial improvements in ventilation due to the COVID pandemic. It would IMO be ideal to have sources from the last five years for most of the medical/scientific parts of the article, even for facts that haven't changed recently. Our general preference is for textbooks, reference works, and review articles. I'll start doing that in a few minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::In the meantime, I checked some sources, in particular the lawsuit and it verified the claim. So I have reverted the ip's revert. Lova Falk (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::First of all: great to have a reply! Thank you for this.

::I agree that there were significant changes since the creation of the article. Lova Falk says that she has reverted the ip's revert. In the meantime, the IP has again reverted.

::What shall I do? Josef X Brunner (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You let us handle the IP. Let's talk about this more at Talk:Modes of mechanical ventilation#Lawsuits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{al|Cancer Alley}}

Seems to be a spike of interest in this for US political reasons (?). Anyway, an editor is wanting to make changes and there is disagreement about use of primary sources, letters, WP:MDPI and sourcing standards in general. More eyes would be helpful! Bon courage (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Opinions are wanted at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Does MEDRS apply to "further reading" on a medical topic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

At Transgender health care misinformation there currently is discussion about suitability of 2 sources [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116943] which discuss misinformation (false or misleading claims) around transgender health care. These are both published in [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-science-and-medicine Social Science & medicine] a journal which describes its subject areas as "Sociology and Political Science, Social Psychology, Health, Public Health and Health Policy, Development" as found [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-science-and-medicine/about/aims-and-scope here]. The journal is also found in Medline (although that doesn't confirm medrs status) Some editors are saying that these 2 sources are not MEDRS and therefore can not be used make claims about misinformation around biomedical information (i.e one argued we wouldn't be able to say groups distorted scientific findings about research) because saying a biomedical claim is false, is a biomedical claim. I know there could be concerns with wp:parity as well. I mainly wanted to see what other peoples thoughts would be on the suitability of these sources and what kind of claims should/should not be sourced to them. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, I looked at the two sources. Although these papers may be peer reviewed and even if published in reputable journals, they would have been flagged as not secondary sources: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533] (case study- although this paper also has "qualitatively analyzed a dataset featuring 375 unique citations referenced throughout federal litigation over SAFE to identify these agents of scientific uncertainty's arguments" so I am not sure if this would be more like a meta-analysis, sorry I don't have time to review the methods) and [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116943] ('thematic analysis'). I have not reviewed the evidence that was shared from these in the wikipedia article, but looking to see if similar evidence has been shared in a systematic review or literature review would meet MEDRS. Hope that this helps a little. These are terrific questions! JenOttawa (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the help and spending your time. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

An RfC has been posted at Talk:Acupuncture regarding the lead section and its alignment with Wikipedia’s content policies. Input welcome.

--Haharris9 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Health benefits of quitting alcohol is a new entry with a tag that could use some improvement, if any project members are interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I created a new article Draft:T. Owens Moore. Muirjohnnyes (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sure NPP will take a look at it soon,thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

pretty sure the Tension Headache article for wikipedia shouldn't be straight into acupuncture (at least it says no), and chiropractic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_headache 141.195.163.54 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Tension headache#Treatment starts with a recommendation to drink some water. Then it describes some exercises and medications. Manual therapies are at the end of that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)